Our Aging Sport

[marbleheadmaui]

I reckon it's a combination of 3 & 4 with a litte bit of 1.

If advanced technology, training and nutrition allows world-class fighters to physically maintain a high level of performance into their 30s, then it makes it harder for younger guys to establish themselves, as they are competing on the same physical terms but lack the experience.

The strength of physical youth is no longer the advantage it once was.

I kinda, sorta lean in this direction too. But only kinda, sorta. I mean I can't think of any training aids that should disproportionately help older fighters, can you? It seems to me better whatever it is should apply equally across ages...shouldn't it?

I tend to think the experience thing you cite is key. Go back to say 1941. Middleweight champ Tony Zale has had 60+ fights at 27 years of age. The top five middleweight challengers average just under 25 years of age and yet have an average of 55 fights apiece. THAT is a tempered bunch.

Today? Despite the extremely old average age of the 2011 p4p top ten? Four of them have fewer than 30 professional fights. I am persuaded that for 99.99999% of all fighters who ever boxed? That simply isn't enough experience to obtain top quality skill and craft.

What I fear we are seeing now is a sport where we will rarely see the optimal combination of youthful native talent and extensive skill and craft only experience can produce.

If you accept that conditions - technology, training, nutrition - are far more favourable to modern fighters, then how come you believe the standard of boxing has deteriorated so badly?

Your argument that less people competing thins out the overall quality is totally understandable. However, modern fighters are blessed with all the knowledge that has gone before them. They're in a position to better preserve their bodies which should lead to a consistently higher standard of performance.

It seems to me that you are saying all modern-day fighters/trainers are utterly thick? If not, why haven't they been able to imitate the "far superior" boxing ability of past champions?

I DON'T believe the bold. Fighters train and eat more or less the same way they did 100 years ago. But I included it because it is possible I'm wrong

I think you are missing two things though. First boxer's today ARE thick! Perhaps better said, their trainers are. There simply isn't the teaching level today that there was when I was a youngun, let alone what there was when boxing was one of the two major sports. Watching something and doing it properly are two different things. Teaching boxing and boxing iteself are apprentice endeavors. The second thing is I fail to understand what enables athl;etes in their 30's to "preserve their bodies" that doesn't also drive higher performance from men in their twenties. In other words, if that were true, why aren't hockey, tennis, football etc particiapnts getting older as well?

[Fenster]

I reckon it's a combination of 3 & 4 with a litte bit of 1.

If advanced technology, training and nutrition allows world-class fighters to physically maintain a high level of performance into their 30s, then it makes it harder for younger guys to establish themselves, as they are competing on the same physical terms but lack the experience.

The strength of physical youth is no longer the advantage it once was.

I kinda, sorta lean in this direction too. But only kinda, sorta. I mean I can't think of any training aids that should disproportionately help older fighters, can you? It seems to me better whatever it is should apply equally across ages...shouldn't it?

I tend to think the experience thing you cite is key. Go back to say 1941. Middleweight champ Tony Zale has had 60+ fights at 27 years of age. The top five middleweight challengers average just under 25 years of age and yet have an average of 55 fights apiece. THAT is a tempered bunch.

Today? Despite the extremely old average age of the 2011 p4p top ten? Four of them have fewer than 30 professional fights. I am persuaded that for 99.99999% of all fighters who ever boxed? That simply isn't enough experience to obtain top quality skill and craft.

What I fear we are seeing now is a sport where we will rarely see the optimal combination of youthful native talent and extensive skill and craft only experience can produce.

If you accept that conditions - technology, training, nutrition - are far more favourable to modern fighters, then how come you believe the standard of boxing has deteriorated so badly?

Your argument that less people competing thins out the overall quality is totally understandable. However, modern fighters are blessed with all the knowledge that has gone before them. They're in a position to better preserve their bodies which should lead to a consistently higher standard of performance.

It seems to me that you are saying all modern-day fighters/trainers are utterly thick? If not, why haven't they been able to imitate the "far superior" boxing ability of past champions?

I DON'T believe the bold. Fighters train and eat more or less the same way they did 100 years ago. But I included it because it is possible I'm wrong

I think you are missing two things though. First boxer's today ARE thick! Perhaps better said, their trainers are. There simply isn't the teaching level today that there was when I was a youngun, let alone what there was when boxing was one of the two major sports. Watching something and doing it properly are two different things. Teaching boxing and boxing iteself are apprentice endeavors. The second thing is I fail to understand what enables athl;etes in their 30's to "preserve their bodies" that doesn't also drive higher performance from men in their twenties. In other words, if that were true, why aren't hockey, tennis, football etc particiapnts getting older as well?

Hmmm....

1. You believe that sometime in the recent past humans lost the ability to learn, interpret and practice the teachings of - supposedly far superior - men that came before them? So not only did peoples interpretation of boxing devolve, but NO-ONE has been able to identify this problem you have observed? Subsequently the thousands and thousands of fighters that have entered gyms, many having huge natural talent that can equal any man from any era (you don't believe natural talent is exclusive to old grey beards too, right?), have failed in their boxing instinct to match fighters from the past? This is utterly ridiculous to me. Help?

2. If you fight less you have more chance of career longevity. If we take two fighters of equal ability, give one 50 fights in ten years and the other 100 fights in ten years who is more likely to last longer? Fighters these days compete less - hence self-preservation.

3. Comparing boxing to other sports doesn't work. Tennis players play thousands of matches throughout a career. They can lose hundreds of times and still finish as "greats." Boxers need only ONE loss at the wrong time for their career to disintegrate. Just about every sport has records being constantly broken. The level of performance has improved with advanced conditions. We know that Jesse Owens was a snail compared to Usain Bolt. However, no-one can ever possibly prove that Ali/Lewis/Vitali would have beat Marciano even though most think it. This clearly gives you a very comfortable position to argue from.

Finally, the most important part - how does the amount of money available in other major sports compare with boxing? There are only a select few boxers that can demand million dollar purses. If a top flight tennis player makes a few million by time he's 25 it's only natural he will retire earlier once the love of training/competition has gone. Most boxers don't have that luxury. The old-timers were motivated by money too, right? They didn't fight every other week for the love of it?

[marbleheadmaui]

Hmmm....

1. You believe that sometime in the recent past humans lost the ability to learn, interpret and practice the teachings of - supposedly far superior - men that came before them? So not only did peoples interpretation of boxing devolve, but NO-ONE has been able to identify this problem you have observed? Subsequently the thousands and thousands of fighters that have entered gyms, many having huge natural talent that can equal any man from any era (you don't believe natural talent is exclusive to old grey beards too, right?), have failed in their boxing instinct to match fighters from the past? This is utterly ridiculous to me. Help?

2. If you fight less you have more chance of career longevity. If we take two fighters of equal ability, give one 50 fights in ten years and the other 100 fights in ten years who is more likely to last longer? Fighters these days compete less - hence self-preservation.

3. Comparing boxing to other sports doesn't work. Tennis players play thousands of matches throughout a career. They can lose hundreds of times and still finish as "greats." Boxers need only ONE loss at the wrong time for their career to disintegrate. Just about every sport has records being constantly broken. The level of performance has improved with advanced conditions. We know that Jesse Owens was a snail compared to Usain Bolt. However, no-one can ever possibly prove that Ali/Lewis/Vitali would have beat Marciano even though most think it. This clearly gives you a very comfortable position to argue from.

Finally, the most important part - how does the amount of money available in other major sports compare with boxing? There are only a select few boxers that can demand million dollar purses. If a top flight tennis player makes a few million by time he's 25 it's only natural he will retire earlier once the love of training/competition has gone. Most boxers don't have that luxury. The old-timers were motivated by money too, right? They didn't fight every other week for the love of it?

1. I think the idea that a specific craft always EVOLVES rather than DEVOLVES is simply wrong. Ask yourself this. When did the world have the finest blacksmiths? 200-300 years ago when every village had one and every city had several or today when they are a rare anachronism? When did the world have the finest horsemen? When the Mongol hordes, hundreds of thousands strong crashed west or when the Comanche in their tens of thousands ruled Texas or when JEB Stuart's cavalry circled the entire Union Army or today, when everyone drives a car? When did the world have the finest wind-powered sailors? When tens of thousands of mariners roamed across the seas throught storms in ships made of wood with only a sextant, compass and the wind delivering freight and fighting wars or today when few recreational sailors ever leave the sight of land and those that do are armed with GPS and cell-phones and computers?

Now what do these have in common with boxing? Two major things. They are largely apprentice tasks and skills and the resources applied to them have declined dramatically. If one watches enough footage one notices several thinhgs about the game today. First, style diversity is at its lowest in 80 years. Where are the guys fighting out of a crouch like Jeffries or Berlenbach or Galento? Where are the bobbers and weavers like Frazier, Dempsey or a young Tyson? Where are the "stay in the pocket" counterpunchers like Sanchez, Pep or Sweet Pea? Or better put on this one, where are those guys under 35? Another example is the lack ok KO punchers as noted by Manny Stewart. Where are the Ernie Shavers, Tommy Hearns, Julian Jacksons, Ray Robinson's today? That is a fuinction of lower talent levels, poor teaching, or both. Go watch Ike Williams and the torque and leverage he gets on his punches. There is almost nobody today who looks like that.

2. You are measuring fighter longevity in a way that doesn't matter, time. As a fan? That's easy to accomplish, take lots of time off. I care about fighter longevity in a way that DOES matter. Number of fights. If one waits too long? One doesn't acquire optimnal experience until long after one's reflexes etc begin to erode.

3. Of COURSE I can compare boxing to other sports. You don't think one time, or short time events can change careers in other sports? Look up Gale Sayers, Bobby Orr, Calvin Shiraldi and Pete Resier as examples. As for records in measurable sports never being higher? Find me a sport where a) size is restricted (the explanation for swimming and sprinting etc) ande/or b) technology hasn't changed (starting blocks, better tracks, introduction of weightlifting, steroids etc).

As for "comfort?" The math is what the math is isn't it? Half as many fighters today fighting half as many fights each. Unless you think boxing is the one human endeavor where doing it less makes one more proficient...

And actually old timers fought for money AND to be great. After Ray Robinson won the 147 crown the VERY FIRST THING he and his trainer George Gainford agreed to was that he had to stay active and sharp. More broadly up until about the 1960's there were really only two sports where a gifted athlete could make big money. Baseball and boxing. Greb and Walker and Ross etc made fortunes and lived like kings.

But in the end the WHY of the frequency of fighting doesn't matter. One either fights frequently and becomes expert or one doesn't and one doesn't...or one is a .0000000001 % freak.

[generalbulldog]

You're about to get banned Maui, don't say I didn't warn you. You got into it with long respectable members like hornfinger, joeymafia, and now Fenster. That's 3 strikes.


That is all.

[marbleheadmaui]

You're about to get banned Maui, don't say I didn't warn you. You got into it with long respectable members like hornfinger, joeymafia, and now Fenster. That's 3 strikes.


That is all.

I hate it when that happens!

[Fenster]

You're about to get banned Maui, don't say I didn't warn you. You got into it with long respectable members like hornfinger, joeymafia, and now Fenster. That's 3 strikes.


That is all.

Your posts have gone weird lately.

You on the drugs?

[Fenster]

Hmmm....

1. You believe that sometime in the recent past humans lost the ability to learn, interpret and practice the teachings of - supposedly far superior - men that came before them? So not only did peoples interpretation of boxing devolve, but NO-ONE has been able to identify this problem you have observed? Subsequently the thousands and thousands of fighters that have entered gyms, many having huge natural talent that can equal any man from any era (you don't believe natural talent is exclusive to old grey beards too, right?), have failed in their boxing instinct to match fighters from the past? This is utterly ridiculous to me. Help?

2. If you fight less you have more chance of career longevity. If we take two fighters of equal ability, give one 50 fights in ten years and the other 100 fights in ten years who is more likely to last longer? Fighters these days compete less - hence self-preservation.

3. Comparing boxing to other sports doesn't work. Tennis players play thousands of matches throughout a career. They can lose hundreds of times and still finish as "greats." Boxers need only ONE loss at the wrong time for their career to disintegrate. Just about every sport has records being constantly broken. The level of performance has improved with advanced conditions. We know that Jesse Owens was a snail compared to Usain Bolt. However, no-one can ever possibly prove that Ali/Lewis/Vitali would have beat Marciano even though most think it. This clearly gives you a very comfortable position to argue from.

Finally, the most important part - how does the amount of money available in other major sports compare with boxing? There are only a select few boxers that can demand million dollar purses. If a top flight tennis player makes a few million by time he's 25 it's only natural he will retire earlier once the love of training/competition has gone. Most boxers don't have that luxury. The old-timers were motivated by money too, right? They didn't fight every other week for the love of it?

1. I think the idea that a specific craft always EVOLVES rather than DEVOLVES is simply wrong. Ask yourself this. When did the world have the finest blacksmiths? 200-300 years ago when every village had one and every city had several or today when they are a rare anachronism? When did the world have the finest horsemen? When the Mongol hordes, hundreds of thousands strong crashed west or when the Comanche in their tens of thousands ruled Texas or when JEB Stuart's cavalry circled the entire Union Army or today, when everyone drives a car? When did the world have the finest wind-powered sailors? When tens of thousands of mariners roamed across the seas throught storms in ships made of wood with only a sextant, compass and the wind delivering freight and fighting wars or today when few recreational sailors ever leave the sight of land and those that do are armed with GPS and cell-phones and computers?

Now what do these have in common with boxing? Two major things. They are largely apprentice tasks and skills and the resources applied to them have declined dramatically. If one watches enough footage one notices several thinhgs about the game today. First, style diversity is at its lowest in 80 years. Where are the guys fighting out of a crouch like Jeffries or Berlenbach or Galento? Where are the bobbers and weavers like Frazier, Dempsey or a young Tyson? Where are the "stay in the pocket" counterpunchers like Sanchez, Pep or Sweet Pea? Or better put on this one, where are those guys under 35? Another example is the lack ok KO punchers as noted by Manny Stewart. Where are the Ernie Shavers, Tommy Hearns, Julian Jacksons, Ray Robinson's today? That is a fuinction of lower talent levels, poor teaching, or both. Go watch Ike Williams and the torque and leverage he gets on his punches. There is almost nobody today who looks like that.

2. You are measuring fighter longevity in a way that doesn't matter, time. As a fan? That's easy to accomplish, take lots of time off. I care about fighter longevity in a way that DOES matter. Number of fights. If one waits too long? One doesn't acquire optimnal experience until long after one's reflexes etc begin to erode.

3. Of COURSE I can compare boxing to other sports. You don't think one time, or short time events can change careers in other sports? Look up Gale Sayers, Bobby Orr, Calvin Shiraldi and Pete Resier as examples. As for records in measurable sports never being higher? Find me a sport where a) size is restricted (the explanation for swimming and sprinting etc) ande/or b) technology hasn't changed (starting blocks, better tracks, introduction of weightlifting, steroids etc).

As for "comfort?" The math is what the math is isn't it? Half as many fighters today fighting half as many fights each. Unless you think boxing is the one human endeavor where doing it less makes one more proficient...

And actually old timers fought for money AND to be great. After Ray Robinson won the 147 crown the VERY FIRST THING he and his trainer George Gainford agreed to was that he had to stay active and sharp. More broadly up until about the 1960's there were really only two sports where a gifted athlete could make big money. Baseball and boxing. Greb and Walker and Ross etc made fortunes and lived like kings.

But in the end the WHY of the frequency of fighting doesn't matter. One either fights frequently and becomes expert or one doesn't and one doesn't...or one is a .0000000001 % freak.

Right, so basically we are back to - less fights means less skill/craft.

But the number of fights must be crammed into as short a time as possible. Because 30+ guys are no longer in their physical prime so can never match the performance of expertly trained young guys.

However, sadly there is a serious dearth of knowledgable trainers around anyway. Which means the fighters and trainers today are mere minnows compared with men from the past.

Boxing is doomed.

Oh, Marble, how we long for the good old days

[marbleheadmaui]

Hmmm....

1. You believe that sometime in the recent past humans lost the ability to learn, interpret and practice the teachings of - supposedly far superior - men that came before them? So not only did peoples interpretation of boxing devolve, but NO-ONE has been able to identify this problem you have observed? Subsequently the thousands and thousands of fighters that have entered gyms, many having huge natural talent that can equal any man from any era (you don't believe natural talent is exclusive to old grey beards too, right?), have failed in their boxing instinct to match fighters from the past? This is utterly ridiculous to me. Help?

2. If you fight less you have more chance of career longevity. If we take two fighters of equal ability, give one 50 fights in ten years and the other 100 fights in ten years who is more likely to last longer? Fighters these days compete less - hence self-preservation.

3. Comparing boxing to other sports doesn't work. Tennis players play thousands of matches throughout a career. They can lose hundreds of times and still finish as "greats." Boxers need only ONE loss at the wrong time for their career to disintegrate. Just about every sport has records being constantly broken. The level of performance has improved with advanced conditions. We know that Jesse Owens was a snail compared to Usain Bolt. However, no-one can ever possibly prove that Ali/Lewis/Vitali would have beat Marciano even though most think it. This clearly gives you a very comfortable position to argue from.

Finally, the most important part - how does the amount of money available in other major sports compare with boxing? There are only a select few boxers that can demand million dollar purses. If a top flight tennis player makes a few million by time he's 25 it's only natural he will retire earlier once the love of training/competition has gone. Most boxers don't have that luxury. The old-timers were motivated by money too, right? They didn't fight every other week for the love of it?

1. I think the idea that a specific craft always EVOLVES rather than DEVOLVES is simply wrong. Ask yourself this. When did the world have the finest blacksmiths? 200-300 years ago when every village had one and every city had several or today when they are a rare anachronism? When did the world have the finest horsemen? When the Mongol hordes, hundreds of thousands strong crashed west or when the Comanche in their tens of thousands ruled Texas or when JEB Stuart's cavalry circled the entire Union Army or today, when everyone drives a car? When did the world have the finest wind-powered sailors? When tens of thousands of mariners roamed across the seas throught storms in ships made of wood with only a sextant, compass and the wind delivering freight and fighting wars or today when few recreational sailors ever leave the sight of land and those that do are armed with GPS and cell-phones and computers?

Now what do these have in common with boxing? Two major things. They are largely apprentice tasks and skills and the resources applied to them have declined dramatically. If one watches enough footage one notices several thinhgs about the game today. First, style diversity is at its lowest in 80 years. Where are the guys fighting out of a crouch like Jeffries or Berlenbach or Galento? Where are the bobbers and weavers like Frazier, Dempsey or a young Tyson? Where are the "stay in the pocket" counterpunchers like Sanchez, Pep or Sweet Pea? Or better put on this one, where are those guys under 35? Another example is the lack ok KO punchers as noted by Manny Stewart. Where are the Ernie Shavers, Tommy Hearns, Julian Jacksons, Ray Robinson's today? That is a fuinction of lower talent levels, poor teaching, or both. Go watch Ike Williams and the torque and leverage he gets on his punches. There is almost nobody today who looks like that.

2. You are measuring fighter longevity in a way that doesn't matter, time. As a fan? That's easy to accomplish, take lots of time off. I care about fighter longevity in a way that DOES matter. Number of fights. If one waits too long? One doesn't acquire optimnal experience until long after one's reflexes etc begin to erode.

3. Of COURSE I can compare boxing to other sports. You don't think one time, or short time events can change careers in other sports? Look up Gale Sayers, Bobby Orr, Calvin Shiraldi and Pete Resier as examples. As for records in measurable sports never being higher? Find me a sport where a) size is restricted (the explanation for swimming and sprinting etc) ande/or b) technology hasn't changed (starting blocks, better tracks, introduction of weightlifting, steroids etc).

As for "comfort?" The math is what the math is isn't it? Half as many fighters today fighting half as many fights each. Unless you think boxing is the one human endeavor where doing it less makes one more proficient...

And actually old timers fought for money AND to be great. After Ray Robinson won the 147 crown the VERY FIRST THING he and his trainer George Gainford agreed to was that he had to stay active and sharp. More broadly up until about the 1960's there were really only two sports where a gifted athlete could make big money. Baseball and boxing. Greb and Walker and Ross etc made fortunes and lived like kings.

But in the end the WHY of the frequency of fighting doesn't matter. One either fights frequently and becomes expert or one doesn't and one doesn't...or one is a .0000000001 % freak.

Right, so basically we are back to - less fights means less skill/craft.

But the number of fights must be crammed into as short a time as possible. Because 30+ guys are no longer in their physical prime so can never match the performance of expertly trained young guys.

However, sadly there is a serious dearth of knowledgable trainers around anyway. Which means the fighters and trainers today are mere minnows compared with men from the past.

Boxing is doomed.

Oh, Marble, how we long for the good old days

I am actually longing for an extended economic depression as a way of making so many people so poor that kids once again turn to boxing as a way to make a buck and local boxing clubs reappear because baseball/football/basketball tix are too expensive for most folks!

Now am I a fan or what?